I like getting my news, or at least some of it, from Reuters. Partly because they’re good at reporting the news and partly because they’re good to use as a source. As much as I hate HuffPo or Kos, I suspect that liberals hate Fox, CATO or Heritage.
Reuters is safe.
“AT&T jacks up data plan prices as usage booms”
I mean jeepers. Jacks up data plan prices and then followed by usage booms! My gawd, the world is ending. So I read the article. And didn’t understand the outrage:
From January 22, AT&T customers will pay $20 for a 300-megabyte monthly data plan, up from $15 for 200-mb currently.
So, right now, AT&T charges $15 for 200 mb. Or $0.075 per meg. Right? 7.5 cents times 200 equals 15 American. Then, after the 22nd, AT&T is going to charge WAY more than 7.5 cents per meg, they’re gonna charge $0.06 per meg.
Robber barons!
There’s more:
Users with higher requirements can also opt for $30 for 3 gigabytes — versus $25 for 2 GB previously
AT&T used to charge $25 for 2 GIG, or $12.5 per GIG. Now, those greedy bastards are charging WAY more, they’re charging $30 for 3! That comes out to $10 per GIG.
Wait, that doesn’t make sense. But there’s more still:
or $50 for 5 GB, up from $45 for 4 GB.
For the larger plans, AT&T used to charge $11.25 per GIG. And now what are those monopolistic capitalists charging?!?
$10 per GIG. For those that attended the CLA, that is an 11% price REDUCTION!
“Jacks” up rates indeed.
We need WAY more journalists. For sure!
For fun, I thought I’d check out the comments section of the Reuters piece. The very first one, I shit thee not:
jscott418 wrote:Normally demand reduces prices. What’s AT&T excuse? Seems to me they are just taking advantage of the popularity of data usage.
Normally. Demand. Reduces. Prices.
Blink. Blink.
You can NOT make this up.
Often it’s an issue of the person writing the headline not being the person who wrote the article (see the recent mini “controversy” over the title of Andrew Sullivan’s article in Newsweek). The headline writers are only concerned with getting everyone’s attention and this often leads to misleading or overstated headlines.
Often it’s an issue of the person writing the headline not being the person who wrote the article (see the recent mini “controversy” over the title of Andrew Sullivan’s article in Newsweek).
Fair enough.
The story seems pretty straight forward to me. I presume you don’t like the term “jacks up” as opposed to “increases” in relation to prices? I looked it up and it isn’t necessarily meaning something negative; it is colloquial. Seeing the term in a headline would not get me to see it any more negative than using “increases.” I can see how a colloquial usage could sound more like complaining than a straight forward ‘increases.’ I do agree with dedc79 that headlines are often sensationalized.
The story seems pretty straight forward to me.
Well, except it’s not true. The prices went down.
I presume you don’t like the term “jacks up” as opposed to “increases” in relation to prices?
Yes. Jacks seems to imply a gross raising of prices. The use of that word is inappropriate for an outlet like Reuters. Not to mention that it’s not factually accurate.
Well, it depends on if people use all the capacity. I suspect this would be a higher price for similar usage levels for most people. But I don’t think ATT did anything wrong – and the fact that existing customers stay with the old plan seems like something customer-friendly. In that ‘jacks up’ does seem inappropriate, existing customers can continue as they have been.
Well, it depends on if people use all the capacity.
Fair enough.
In that ‘jacks up’ does seem inappropriate, existing customers can continue as they have been.
Agreed. Exiting clients keep their rate.
As a blogger with a degree in journalism I have to say I’m dismayed by the change in the way the news is delivered these days. We’re moving in the wrong direction, people!
As a blogger with a degree in journalism
You’re a good writer man, it shows!
I’m dismayed by the change in the way the news is delivered these days. We’re moving in the wrong direction, people!
Political persuasion/agenda aside, they don’t even get the facts right often enough. Or dig a little to try and answer questions people might have.